3 ms·

No, the hard part is building a good API and user interface that works for everybody. IMO that's mostly why there are a lot of half-finished and inconsistent th

No, the hard part is building a good API and user interface that works for everybody. IMO that's mostly why there are a lot of half-finished and inconsistent things like that X11.

jude- 6y ago
Doesn't that undermine Wayland's selling point of isolating clients' input? No one was clamoring for this until Wayland announced it, and no one was willing to put in the effort to fix it in X11 all these years (even though it would have been easier than ripping out X11 entirely).
- cycloptic 6y ago
  That's one of the things Wayland was designed to do, of course implementations can build other things around it that allow privileged clients to break client isolation. The effort could have been put into X11 but it seems the people interested in this would rather put that effort into Wayland.
  - jude- 6y ago
    That's literally the essence of the CADT[1] model of software development. Why do a comparatively-small amount of unglamorous work to solve a bug when you can just burn everything down and rewrite it from scratch? [1] https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      Not really, it's the same amount of work either way considering this doesn't exist yet.
      - jude- 6y ago
        Option 1: add an X extension that lets you configure which windows get to see which input events. Most clients don't actually need to see any events besides the ones they would see while in focus, so most clients don't notice. Option 2: replace X with something entirely different -- different rendering, different input, different IPC, different organizing principles, different programming models -- and patch all downstream dependencies to use it. If you can't see that Option 2 is clearly more work and more disruptive, I don't know what else to say to you.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        That's not really a reasonable comparison here, because option 2 has already mostly been done, for other reasons.

No, the hard part is building a good API and user interface that works for everybody. IMO that's mostly why there are a lot of half-finished and inconsistent things like that X11.

jude- 6y ago

Doesn't that undermine Wayland's selling point of isolating clients' input? No one was clamoring for this until Wayland announced it, and no one was willing to put in the effort to fix it in X11 all these years (even though it would have been easier than ripping out X11 entirely).

cycloptic 6y ago
That's one of the things Wayland was designed to do, of course implementations can build other things around it that allow privileged clients to break client isolation. The effort could have been put into X11 but it seems the people interested in this would rather put that effort into Wayland.
- jude- 6y ago
  That's literally the essence of the CADT[1] model of software development. Why do a comparatively-small amount of unglamorous work to solve a bug when you can just burn everything down and rewrite it from scratch? [1] https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Not really, it's the same amount of work either way considering this doesn't exist yet.
    - jude- 6y ago
      Option 1: add an X extension that lets you configure which windows get to see which input events. Most clients don't actually need to see any events besides the ones they would see while in focus, so most clients don't notice. Option 2: replace X with something entirely different -- different rendering, different input, different IPC, different organizing principles, different programming models -- and patch all downstream dependencies to use it. If you can't see that Option 2 is clearly more work and more disruptive, I don't know what else to say to you.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        That's not really a reasonable comparison here, because option 2 has already mostly been done, for other reasons.